The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Abouttecp_011006TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA UKIAH CIVIC CENTER Conference Room No. 3 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006 3:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Goodrick, Lohse, Baxter, Seanor, Turner, Taylor, Whitaker, and Chairman Kageyama 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11, 2005 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS• The Traffic Engineering Committee welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than 10 minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on non-agenda items. 4. OLD BUSINESS: None. 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Discussion and possible action regarding request for STOP signs at North School Street and Smith Street. b. Discussion and possible action regarding request for STOP signs at East Gobbi Street and Waugh Lane. c. Discussion and possible action regarding request for no parking zone at 615 Talmage Road. 6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS: a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study (Tim Eriksen) b. Update on City Parking Study (verbal report) c. Update on crosswalks (verbal report) 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: 8. ADJOURNMENT Please call JoAnne Campbell at 463-6755 if you are unable to attend the meeting. The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. Minutes TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE October 11, 2005 Members Present Others Present Staff Present Dan Baxter Bruce Poma Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Ben Kageyama, Chair David Poma JoAnne Campbell, Recording Secretary Sue Goodrick John McCowen Dave Lohse Rick Seanor Jerry Whitaker Members Absent Steve Turner Trent Taylor Chair Kageyama called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 9, 2005 ON A MOTION by Member Seanor, seconded by Member Baxter, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to approve the August 9, 2005 minutes, as submitted. III. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. IV. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action regarding Church Street loading zone. Member Seanor submitted and presented report which consisted of measurements, photo, and a copy of City Code 3 7143I. Staff recommendation is fora 40-foot loading zone to be located on south side of Church Street. Bruce and David Poma informed committee 60-foot trucks occasionally use the loading zone and if the City were to remove two spaces and leave the loading zone at current location; their driveway can be blocked to accommodate 60-foot trucks. Bruce and David Poma offered a suggestion to relocate the loading zone on the north side of Church Street from it's current location to the east end of the block with this proposal they suggested that the first two parking spaces on the south side of Church Street, east end of the block, could be eliminated. This would allow traffic to weave around a truck parked in the loading zone. Chair Kageyama added to accommodate 60-foot trucks, more than two parking spaces would need to be eliminated. Member Seanor responded that these trucks should be scheduled for deliveries at time when additional parking is available on the street. Member Baxter indicated the traffic hazard would not be eliminated since vehicles will continue to maneuver around obstructions. Following the staff recommendation would give traffic a straight through path when driving on Church Street. ON A MOTION by Member Baxter, seconded by Member Whitaker, it was carried by an all AYE vote of the members present to create a 40-foot loading zone on Church Street, as outlined in the staff report. Traffic Engineering Committee October 11, 2005 Page 1 V. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action regarding request for bus stop/no parking at 548 Ford Street. Member Seanor submitted and presented report, which consisted of aerial photo, letter from Mr. William Turner, and staff recommendation. Two parking spaces will need to be removed. Member Lohse inquired about school busses using the space also. Member Baxter responded other busses could use the proposed bus stop. Chair Ben Kageyama questioned setting precedence. Committee members recognize this bus stop will provide service for entire complex. John McCowen agrees. Member Whitaker suggests paint red and no MTA sign. ON A MOTION by Member Lohse, seconded by Member Whitaker, it was carried by an all AYE vote of the members recommend that the Ukiah City Council approve the bus stop / no parking zone at 548 Ford Street, as outlined in the staff report. b. Discussion and possible action regarding no parking zone on Clay Street east of Main Street. Member Seanor submitted and presented report, which consisted of a request by Sage Sangiacomo, Community Service Director and Member Taylor, Ukiah Police Department, to extend the no parking zone along the entire frontage of Clay Street adjacent to the Sun House Park. Open discussion on the undesired element that gathers at park, current parking impedes the view of the park and activities, and existing parking near by. Member Lohse recommends notice be given to the adjacent property owners of the Committee's intent to extend the no parking zone. ON A MOTION by Member Lohse, seconded by Member Goodrick, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to recommend that the Ukiah City Council approve the no parking zone as outlined in the staff report with the additional recommendation that the no parking zone be extended along the adjacent property frontage provided that is acceptable with the property owner. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study Member Seanor reported Tim Eriksen, Senior Civil Engineer with the City of Ukiah, is coordinating with consultant on this study. No date of completion has been identified. b. Update on Downtown Parking Improvement Study Member Seanor reported loading zones will be covered in this study and this study is tied to completion of the City Traffic Circulation Study. No date of completion has been identified. c. Update on Crosswalks Member Whitaker reported the installation of look-both-ways reminders at State-Luce, State- Magnolia, State-Fairgrounds, Low Gap-Despina, and Perkins-Warren are a success. Member Seanor informed the TEC that Diana Steele, Director of Public Works/City Engineer has proposed a demonstration project, five (5) locations, be conducted on the effectiveness of flexible crosswalk. The flexible crosswalk signs are proposed for installation at the following locations: Stephenson at State, Luce at State, Smith at State, Freitas at State, and Henry at State. Member Whitaker will research the flexible signs and report at next meeting. Traffic Engineering Committee October 11, 2005 Page 2 VII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Chair Kageyama suggested Empire have bike lane marked as part of Regional Bikeway Plan. He suggests the elimination of parking on south side with bike lanes on both sides. Member Seanor will investigate the possibility and residence will be invited to a meeting. Perkins Street by Starbucks is becoming a traffic hazard. Member Whitaker suggests reducing the speed limit on Perkins Street to 25 (school zone) through engineering speed study. Member Seanor stated that this would be reviewed as part of the speed zone survey funded by Mendocino Council of Governments. Member Lohse suggests additional signage for right turn only out of the Starbucks parking lot. Pavement work has been done, including traffic loops, at four intersections. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Be ya a, Cha ~ ~ JpAnne Cam ell, cording Secretary Traffic Engineering Committee October 11, 2005 Page 3 CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 2006 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Worksc¢f,t1~ SUBJECT: STOP sign request -School Street at Smith Street Agenda Item 5a. REQUEST: Staff received a letter Attachment "A" from David and Barbara Meyer requesting STOP signs be posted on School Street at Smith Street. Barbara Meyer was struck by a vehicle while crossing School Street in the crosswalk, by a vehicle turning left from Smith Street onto School Street. DISCUSSION: An aerial photo map, Attachment "B", is provided to show the location and general area surrounding the School Street and Smith Street intersection. There is an existing STOP sign posted for westbound traffic on Smith Street at its intersection with School Street. Please reference Attachment "C" excerpts from the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement regarding STOP sign applications. Attachment "D" includes specific sections of the City Code of Ukiah, California which address the authority to install official traffic-control devices. As noted in Section 7061, the City Traffic Engineer (Traffic Engineering Committee), is authorized to erect certain official traffic- control devices. In accordance with Section 26.07 of the MUTCD, the following criteria were evaluated: A) A traffic signal is not warranted at this time for this location; B) Crash history - during the three year period from 2002-2004 there was only one reported accident at this intersection which involved a pedestrian being hit while crossing School Street in the crosswalk; C) Minimum traffic volume - A traffic count, Attachment "E", was completed August 31 - September 4, 2005 at this intersection. For the major approaches, School Street (north leg) the average vehicle volume is 316.33 vehicles per hour; School Street (south leg) is assumed to be the same (316.33 vehicles per hour) as the north leg due to failure of the traffic counter. This meets the minimum criteria of 300 vehicles per hour. Forthe minor approach, Smith Street (east leg), the average vehicle volume is 682 vehicles per hour which meets the minimum criteria of 200 vehicles per hour. The final consideration under this criterion pertains to the approach speed. The speed limit is 25 mph on both streets, therefore criterion C.3 does not apply. In addition, Option C) of Section 26.07 of the MUTCD applies to this intersection since traffic stopping on Smith Street has restricted visibility of the cross traffic on School Street. Since criterion C) minimum traffic volume and Option C) are both satisfied, STOP signs are recommended on School Street at the intersection of Smith Street. Page 2 STOP sign request -School Slreet at Smith Streel January 6, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC. Staff has provided the following options for consideration: Post a STOP signs on School Street at the intersection with Smith Street. Refer to staff for further analysis. enc. cc: file A TT~(~1MENT "A '' June 29, 2005 Traffic Engineering Committee RECEIVED ATTN: Deputy Director of Public Works 300 Seminary Ave. JUN 3 0 2005 Ukiah, CA 95482 CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Dear Mr. Seanor: Our family desired to bring to your attention a possible traffic problem on the intersection of Smith and School Streets. This intersection is the final one while leaving the downtown shopping/business area. Driving north on School St. projects the vehicle on a downhill path, which seems to invite a higher rate of speed. This situation creates a potentially more dangerous intersection, both for pedestrians and for cars. To illustrate this point, on December 16, 2004, my wife, Barbara, was hit by a vehicle while she was in the crosswalk on School St. She is still undergoing medical recovery. See traffic report 04-4000 for more information. Recently, another car driving at a higher rate of speed almost hit her again in that crosswalk. As I have had occasion to drive up Smith St. from State St., it has been difficult to see approaching traffic on School St. because the slanted parking spots on School St. block the Smith St. vision of traffic. A driver literally has to inch forward toward traffic to get a view of the cross traffic. Our family would like to encourage the commission to place stop signs on the north and south sides of the Smith and School Street intersection. This will protect citizens who must travel into the downtown section of the city. Thank you so much for your consideration of this proposal. Sincerely, David & Barbara Meyer Attachment "B" Smith Street at School Street s p 1 inch equals 50 feet Photo Date: March 2001 Page 2B-6 , ~ 2003 Edition IY~aht'Uc) 6i L{rlti0f7.~ ~fR71 tc- Govt~('v1 ng/t'~e~7 ~TTq~HMENT uC Ii Table 26-1, Regulatory Sign Sizes (Sheet 5 of 5) Sign MUTCD ectton Conventional Expressway Freeway Minimum Oversized Code Road Kaep Ofl Medien R11-1 28.47 600 x 750 - - - _ 24x30 Road Closed R7 i-2 28.48 1200 x 750 - - - _ 48 x 30 Road Closed -Local R11-3,3a, 2B.46 1500 x 750 - - Traflic Onl 3b,4 60 x 30 Weight Limit R12-1,2 28.49 600 x 750 900 x 1200 - - 900 x 1200 24 x 30 36 x 46 36 x 46 Weight Limit R12-3 28.49 600 x 900 - - - - 24x36 Weight Limit R12-4 26.49 900 x 600 - - - 36 x 24 Weight Limit R12-5 28.49 600 x 900 900 x 7200 7200 x 1500 - - 24 x 36 36 x 48 48 x 60 Metric Plaque R72-6 28.49 600 x 225 - - - - 24x9 Weigh Station q73-1 28.50 1800 x 7200 2400 x 1650 3000 x 1100 - - 72 x 48 96 x 66 120 x 64 Truck Route R74-1 28.51 600 x 450 - - - - 24x18 Hazardous Material R14-2,3 28.52 600 x 600 750 x 750 900 x 900 - 1050 x 1050 24 z 24 30 x 30 36 x 36 42 x 42 National Network R14-4,5 28.53 60D x 600 750 x 750 900 x 900 - 1050 x 1050 24 x 24 30 x 30 36 x 36 42 x 42 Railroatl Crossbuck R75-1 68.03 1200 x 225 - - _ - 46x9 Look R75-6 BB.i6 900 x 450 - - - _ (36 x 18) Notes: e 1. Larger signs may be used when appropriate. 2. Dimensions are shown in millimeters followed by inches in parentheses and are shown as width x height. Section 2B.05 STOP Sit=n Applications Guidance: STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would trot be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. Street entering a through highway or street; C. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or '--~ D. High speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by the STOP sign. ~--- Standard: Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, STOP signs shall not be installed at intersections where traffic control signals are installed and operating except as noted in Section 4D.01. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes. Guidance: STOP signs should not be used for speed control. STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles having [o stop. At intersections where a full stop is no[ necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Section 2B.08). Sect. 2B.05 November 2003 2003 Edition Page 2A-7 Once the decision has been made to install two-way stop control, the decision regarding the appropriate street to stop should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped. A STOP sign should not be installed on the tnajor street unless justified by a traffic engineering study. Support: The following aze considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate street upon which to install a STOP sign where two streets with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: A. Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; B. Stopping the direction [hat has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; C. Stopping the direction that has [he longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching the intersection; and D. Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic. The use of the STOP sign at highway-railroad grade crossings is described in Section 8B.08. The use of [he STOP sign at highway-light rail transit grade crossings is described in Section lOC.04. Section 2B.06 STOP SiEn Placement Standard: The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies. When the STOP sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 2C.29) shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign. The STOP sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be mounted on the same post. Guidance: Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the STOP sign. Support: Section 7(A.16 contains additional information about separate and combined mounting of other signs with STOP signs. Guidance: Stop lines, when used to supplement a STOP sign, should be located at the point where the road user should stop (see Section 3B.16). If only one STOP sign is installed on an approach, the STOP sign should not be placed on the far side of the intersection. Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, [he STOP sign should be positioned at an angle, or shielded, so [hat the legend is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. Where there is a marked crosswalk a[ the intersection, the STOP sign should be installed in advance of the crosswalk line nearest [o [he approaching traffic. Option: At wide-throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of [he stop control may be improved by the installation of an additional STOP sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a stop line. At channelized intersections, the additional STOP sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. Support: Figure 2A-2 shows examples of some typical placements of STOP signs. Section 2B.07 Multiway Stop Applications Support: Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multiway stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multiway stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.05 also apply to multiway stop applications. November 2003 Sect. 28.05 [0 2B.07 Page 2B-8 Guidance: 2(103 Edition The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals aze justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements aze being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. A crash problem, as indicated bey 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehiculaz volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehiculaz traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 65 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehiculaz volume warrants aze 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 aze all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Option: Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; -~C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similaz design and operating chazacteristics where multiway stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. Section 2B.08 YIELD Sign (RI-2) Standard: The YIELD (Rl-2) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be adownward-pointing equilateral triangle with a wide red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background. Support: The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersecfion. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicflng traffic. Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications Option: YIELD signs may be used instead of STOP signs if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. When the ability to see all potentially conflicting traffic is sufficient to allow a road user traveling at the posted speed, the 85th-percentile speed, or the statutory speed to pass through the intersection or to stop in a reasonably safe manner. B. If controlling amerge-type movement on the entering roadway where acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation. C. The second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 9 m (30 ft) or greater. In this case, a STOP sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway. D. An intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign. Standard: A YIELD (R1-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout intersection. Sect. 28.07 m 2B.08 November 2003 MUTCD 2003 California Supplement ~ Page 2B-I CHAPTER 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS Section 2B.01 Application of Reeulatorv Siens The following is added to this section: Standard: Orders, ordinances and resolutions by local authorities which affect State highways shall be approved by Department of Transportation. Support: Signs required for enforcement are normally placed by, and at the expense of, the authority establishing the regulation. Section 2B.02 Desien of Reeulatorv Siens The following is added to this sectia:: Support: Sign design details are contained in FHWA's "Standard Highway Signs" book and Department of Transportation's "Traffic Sign Specifications". See Section lA.l 1 for information regarding these publications. Table 2B-101 shows a list of California Regulatory Signs. Figure 2B-101 shows California Regulatory Signs. ~-~- \ -- ~% \~ _ / v- lam`] ~_ Section 2B.05 STOP Sien Applications ~/ t The fodloiving is added to this section: Support: A STOP (RI-I) sign is not a "cure-all" and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Ofren, the need for a STOP (Rl-t) sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by removing obstructions. Throueh Hiehways Option: ~, STOP (R1-1) signs may be installed either at or near the entrance to a State highway, except at signalized intersections, or at any location so as to control traffic within an intersection. Refer to CVC 21352 and 21355. See Section 1 A.11 for information regarding this publication. Support: When STOP (R1-1) signs or traffic control signals have been erected at all entrances, a highway constitutes a through highway. Refer to CVC 600. Authority to place STOP (R1-I) signs facing State highway traffic is delegated to the Department of j Transportation's District Directors. Option: 4~ Local authorities may designate any highway under theirjurisdiction as a through highway and install STOP (RI-1) signs in a like manner. Refer to CVC 21354. Standard: No local authority, shall erect or maintain any STOP (R1-1) sign or other traffic control device requiring a stop, on any State highway, except by permission of the Department of Transportation. Refer to CVC 21353. Support d The Department of Transportation will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP sign will benefit traffic. May 20, 2004 ~~P~ ATTACKME~JT „D.. 7060: AUTHORITY TO INSTALL OFFICIAL TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICES: The city traffic engineer shall have the power and duTy to determine the location of and to place and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained official traffic-control devices52~~) when and as required to make effective the provisions of this chapter or when he may deem such official traffic-control devices necessary or proper to regulate traffic or to guide or wam traffic. (Ord. 553, § 1, adopted 1963) ~ ____ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ _ 7061: AUTHORITY TO ERECT CERTAIN OFFICIAL TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICES ENUMERATED: The authority herein granted to the city traffic engineer to locate, place and maintain official traffic-control devices includes, but is not necessarily confined to, the authority to locate, place and maintain warning signs to caution drivers of the need for added alertness or reduction in speed, regulatory signs, including speed signs, stop signs, yield signs, traffic signals and alternating signals, to inform motorists of regu atioi~'-ns governing movement, guide signs for guidance and directional information and construction signs, which may include warning, regulatory and guide signs. (Ord. 553, §4, adopted 1963) ~oxc~ ~~~J aOw~ r at} Q ~ J W vO d0 c x d y d Z _0 F... 0 a z ~a LL ~ O •c 0 w~~ ~ y U Q ~ L Y W " ~ J ~ N M Z U Z U 0 z Cw L d ~ ~ M r' ~ a0 OO fC r A Y Q O M f0 1O O A O OO ~' A t~ ~ Of O M M T O W 10 M M '- ~ ~ ~"' ~ 0 1~ ~ N M ~ ~ tp ~ O% N M ~ ~T M M N M M N N ~ ~ C V O M N M h O N O N ~~ EOD ~ ONO W A A V~ M N ~ 0 0 i r h V of N M V 0^'~ A V 0 b 0 N V (y N N~ M N N N N N N M M N N 1Ar A V M< M V! ~ V t0 (0 01 A N A M OO b OD Ir N Of O O N O~ N M N M V h~ N M O M N M ~ N ~ N ~ ~ b ~y M R ~ N M r N~ ~~ b h Off O p ~_ 001 O N E V V M N ~ ~~O _ /yC~~rl~ N 'm^ I 4 ~~ - / ~ r LL'!I N ~ ~ V b ~ItA O 10 10 ~ O V (p N uo 1n r ~ ~ oN Ib°l =~r ~ ~ M N O 0 0 ~ ~O l0 O {~ N (0 N t0 r b 0 ~ ~ W r ~"' Z~a1=3 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o 0 Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 N M d' N 1G ~~ CD 01 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O ~ ~ 0 0 N N N O 0 0 b O f0 CO r ~ O 1A t0 M M V 10 O b V b 10 ~ O Oi T h O M N < 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a N 10 A a7 Of O O O O O O O ~t~ II I i 41 s o m oM 1~ o r~ o m ,~ .~- ~"+ °~ 7 i ~I O O O M r Yj O ~ r M N r s O M O V 1 O ~ , T V Oj N 9 ~ N .g a O O O M!Y) O OD O 00' ~ t^! c'.1 OI 0 e 2' O ~ O tN~f CO N O O h r v a ~ •~- a ~ O 10 O h O O YY O fE Of O ~~,, 10 A O O O A r r V I~ .~ ~~ D S ^+ 'AJ L e o o a o ln r v O O O ~ O N V r N f0 ~ O ~. N ~ r ~ r U A U o ° ~ a M N o o = ~O O ~ M r r O1A maxim o~m o'.3 F" ae3e ~ ~ a ~'nxt7 d°E-w A V ~ J aOu~x o °~S J dO2 c x 'C U d fA d A O Z _O O a Z `~ r LLj O 'C O Z c ao ~ o ~ y U Q ~ L a ~ t0 W Y ~ J ~ O N M Z O U O Z U 0 Z W o~NO.-v bcop ~n w co ~{ ao ao ~ovbooomvv ~"~ a N N M~ ~O M O YI M N N d m ~ C Q O ~ O N O~ N N b~ A O! N p b b~ A A A O N M N O O N O ~ N b N~ N ~ N N p tb+! M M M N r ~ ~ b N M ~T O O N O O N O N OD Oi (V~ I~ n b~ OD Op b 0) ~ 00 u'9 M r r r ~ ~ ~ 0 0 r N t~ b N (p ~O Y~ b~~ T O~~ b b 0 r r r t"' O O N r ~ N< ~ O N O ~~ ~ O O ~- O N M ~ o 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 ' d N th V Yi 0 0 0 0 0 ~ H N A b o a p p ~p b ~ M M M~~ Y M Qi<<i s3 t0 p O A OD O N ~~ N N M N b~ Q N N~ N N ~Z~ =3 O O o o~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <O OI ~ N O O ~ D O O N Q h V N ~ ~ A b o mo rn v O N O M 1~ ~ ~ M O V O O~ b N ~ O a O 00 O b o 0 ~ o v M O t+Nf O V aO0 O M ~ N o i 01 e e O M O ICI OI V M b O ~ O ~ V 0 ~ O N M M ~ e e C b G O T N N ~ M O M N tq b e e ' o 0 0 o b ~ iy O O of O b M N ' ~ r r V N Y tO+1 N i b W r N a n O V O N V d Oi V ~ ~ y q eM- V O u U D `&ev+ ~ v~~b~MN v aa~o ov o~°oH Z b ~ h V T M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- T Y Y~ Y~- F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~R, ~q and g O q 0 r p M O Yi b 1~ b O) O ~ O 0 d d b d~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ f- a Y Q ?~ a a F Q i o 3 e ~ '~ a o- tll ~~° ~> MM} ~~l t`(1 Q t' 1 ~I 0 t d (3~ J cA^^`` ~1 ^L W ~Nxc~ d ~i ~"' W ~ V ~ J aOwx ~ Nf ~ ~ J dO~ cx 'C U am d .. 0 Z O a O a N z LL ~ ~ '. O N W ~ c V OI C 0 ~ y U Q ~ t aYA W Y ~ J ~ O Z M O U 0 Z U Z W d ~ 3 i Ol m ~ i ~ I . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0• . 0 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O r 0 0 0 0« N O O O O N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 {y o 0 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c ¢ 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O a 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O C N t+f V N ip f~ OD C1 O N M V N b 1~ ap p1 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. N N O r O .-iN O O t0 O e 0 e 0 e h O AIM O a' e ~ 0 0 0 0 e 2° o 0 0 0 0 a ~ O N N 1~ O O b O h i ~ t0 O a? c O ~ O N A y M O O O y th G C M ~ A M YI ~ N M V A U ~ O M O N A c ~a o .. Z ai M o N 1° O °~ ~ N M A ~ 10 ~ N A O N O!a~. 0 0 3e ~ ~ ¢ ,a CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 2006 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~~ SUBJECT: STOP sign request -East Gobbi Street at Waugh Lane Agenda Item 5b. REQUEST: Staff received a letter Attachment "A" from Lee Enemark requesting STOP signs be posted on East Gobbi Street at Waugh Lane. Mr. Enemark remarked on the difficulty of utilizing the crosswalks to cross Gobbi Street. Mr. Enemark also noted the difficulty drivers have trying to turn from Waugh Lane onto Gobbi Street. DISCUSSION: At the subject intersection there is an existing STOP sign posted for northbound traffic on Waugh Lane. Please reference Attachment "B" excerpts from the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement regarding STOP sign applications. Attachment "C" includes specific sections of the City Code of Ukiah, California which address the authority to install official traffic-control devices. As noted in Section 7061, the City Traffic Engineer (Traffic Engineering Committee), is authorized to erect certain official traffic- control devices. Per Section 26.07 of the MUTCD, the following criteria were evaluated: A) In accordance with the Traffic Signalization Impact Study completed by Omni-Means, Ltd. dated June 2004, Attachment "D", three out of five traffic signal warrants are met at the subject intersection. In this circumstance, multiway STOP signs can be installed as an interim measure until a traffic signal can be installed. B) Crash history- During the three year period from 2002-2004 there were five reported accidents at this intersection. This criterion is not met since the five accidents did not occurwithin a twelve month period. C) Minimum traffic volume - Peak hourtraffic counts, dated March 2004, Attachment "E", clearly show that the criterion for minimum traffic volume on the major approaches, Gobbi Street (east leg and west leg) is satisfied. The minor approach, Waugh Lane, has an AM peak traffic volume of 156 vehicles per hour and a PM peak traffic volume of 158 vehicles per hour. For the minor approach, Waugh Lane (north leg), it is quite likely, based on the peak hour traffic counts, that the average vehicle volume meets the minimum criteria of 200 vehicles per hour. The final consideration underthis criterion pertains to the approach speed. The speed limit is 25 mph on both streets, therefore criterion C.3 does not apply. Although this report does not document the volume of pedestrian traffic at this intersection, in analysis of the accident reports at this location, two of the five accidents involved Page 2 STOP sign request- East Gobbi Street at Waugh Lane January 6, 2006 pedestrians. As such, Option B of Section 26.07 of the MUTCD should be considered in justifying the multiway STOP sign installation. Finally, Option C) of Section 26.07 of the MUTCD applies to this intersection since traffic stopping on Waugh Lane has restricted visibility of the cross traffic on Gobbi Street, primarily due to the curved alignment of Gobbi Street west of Waugh Lane. Since criterion A), C.1), Option B), and Option C) are satisfied, STOP signs are recommended on Gobbi Street at the intersection of Waugh Lane. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC. Staff has provided the following options for consideration: Post STOP signs on Gobbi Street at the intersection with Waugh Lane. Refer to staff for further analysis. enc. cc: file -,,a REALTY ~j`~i~ WORLD rrn &.. ~~D UROKER Ntl ACOKP SELZE;R REALTY ~TT1~~HMENT "I~" RECEIVED JUL - 6 2005 July 5, 2005 Mr. Rick Seanon Traffic Engineering Department City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah. CA 95482 Dear Mr. Seanon: CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORK3 Nice speaking with you this afternoon. As I stated over the phone, my concern is for the traffic on East Gobbi running both east and west over that street. There has been several accidents at the intersection of Gobbi and Waugh Lane. The problem seems to be excessive speed on Gobbi due to the lack of any stop signs for 3+ blocks. The result of these speeding autos is the danger to pedestrians trying to cross Gobbi at Waugh and to auto's trying to exit Waugh Lane onto Gobbi. In my mind, placing atwo-way stop sign at this intersection would solve a number of problems. Thank you for your consideration and I am looking forward to walking from our office to Kelly Moore with much added safety. Yours truly, Lee Enemark, Realtor Associate 350 East Gobbi Street, Oldah, CA 95482 Bus: (707) 462-6514 • Fax: (707) 462-0969 www.realtyworldselzer.com ludf/xndexllr Oirnrd and Opi~rnlyd Page 2B-6 , -~ pr 2(103 Edition Nlatlktal of 1.(nl-rvrr.. Tr.t is Lflnfrv~ ~e~faES ATTACHMENT u~~~ Table 26-1. Regulatory Sign Sizes (Sheet 5 of 5) Stgn MUTCD ectlon Conventional Expressway Freeway Mlnlmum Oversized Code Road Keep Off Median R11-1 28.47 600 x 750 - - - - 24 x 30 Road Closed R11-2 28.48 1200 x 750 - - - - 48x30 Road Closed -Local R11-3,3a, 28.48 1500 x 750 - - Traflic Onl 3b 4 60 z 30 Weight Limit R12-1,2 28.49 600 x 750 900 x 1200 - - 900 z 1200 24 x 30 36 x 48 36 x 48 Weight Limit R72-3 28.49 600 x 900 - - - - 24x36 Weight Limit R12-4 28.49 900 x 600 - 36 x 24 Weight Limit R72-5 28.49 600 z 900 900 x 1200 1200 x 1500 - - 24 x 36 36 x 48 48 x 60 Metric Plaque R12-6 28.49 600 x 225 - - - - 24x9 Weigh Station R73-1 28.50 1800 x 1200 2400 x 1650 3000 x 7100 - - 72x48 96x66 120x84 Truck Route R14-i 28.57 600 x 450 - - - - 24x18 Hazardous Material R74-2,3 28.52 600 x 600 750 x 750 900 x 900 - 1050 x 1050 24 x 24 30 x 30 36 x 36 42 x 42 National Network R14-4,5 28.53 600 x 600 750 z 750 900 x 900 - 1050 x 1050 24x24 30x30 36236 42x42 Rallroatl Crossbuck R75-1 BB.03 1200 x 225 - - 48x9 Look R15-8 88.16 900 x 450 - - (36 x 18) Notes: e 1. Larger signs may be used when appropriate. 2. Dimensions are shown in millimeters followed by inches in parentheses and are shown as width x height. Section 28.05 STOP Sign Applications Guidance: STOP signs should be used if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. Street entering a through highway or street; C. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area; and/or --1r D. High speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by [he STOP sign. ~- Standard: Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, STOP signs shall not be installed at intersections where traffic control signals are installed and operating except as noted in Section 4D.01. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes. Guidance: STOP signs should not be used for speed control. STOP signs should be installed in a manner [hat minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Section 28.08). Sect. 28.05 November 2003 2003 Ed;'tion Page ZB-7 Once the decision has been made to install two-way stop control, the decision regazding the appropriate street to stop should be based on engineering judgment In most cases, [he street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped. A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study. Support: The Following aze considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate street upon which to install a STOP sign where two streets with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: A. Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; B. Stopping the direction [ha[ has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; C. Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching the intersection; and D. Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic. The use of the STOP sign at highway-railroad grade crossings is described in Section 8B.08. The use of the STOP sign at highway-light rail transit grade crossings is described in Section lOC.04. Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Placement Standard: The STOP sign shall be installed on the right side of the approach to which it applies. When the STOP sign is installed at this required location and the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 2C.29) shall be installed in advance of the STOP sign. The STOP sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate. STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be mounted on the same post. Guidance: Other than a DO NOT ENTER sign, no sign should be mounted back-to-back with a STOP sign in a manner that obscures the shape of the STOP sign. Support: Section 7tA. ]6 contains additional information about separate and combined mounting of other signs with STOP signs. Guidance: Stop lines, when used to supplement a STOP sign, should be located at the point where the road user should stop (see Section 3B.16). If only one STOP sign is installed on an approach, [he STOP sign should no[ be placed on the faz side of the intersection. Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, the STOP sign should be positioned at an angle, or shielded, so that the legend is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. Where there is a marked crosswalk a[ the intersection, the STOP sign should be installed in advance of [he crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic. Option: At wide-throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the signed approach, observance of the stop control may be improved by the installation of an additional STOP sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a stop line. At channelized intersections, [he additional STOP sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. Support: Figure 2A-2 shows examples of some typical placements of STOP signs. Section 2B.07 Multiway Stop Applications Support: Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multiway stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multiway stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.05 also apply to multiway stop applications. November 2003 Sec[. 2B.05 l0 2B.07 Page 2B-8 Guidance: 2003 Edition The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway STOP sign installation: -!A. Where traffic control signals aze justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that aze susceptible to correcfion by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehiculaz volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehiculaz, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersecfion from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 65 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehiculaz volume warrants aze 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Option: Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; --B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; -~C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicfing cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating chazacteristics where multiway stop control would improve traffic operational chazacteristics of the intersection. Section 28.08 YIELD Sign•(R1-21 Standard: The YIELD (RI-2) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be adownward-pointing equilateral triangle with a wide red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background. Support: The YIELD sigri assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic. Section 28.09 YIELD Sign Applications Option: YIELD signs may be used instead of STOP signs if engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. When the ability to see all potentially conflicting traffic is sufficient to allow a road user traveling at the posted speed, the 85th-percentile speed, or the statutory speed to pass through the intersection or to stop in a reasonably safe manner. B. If controlling amerge-type movement on the entering roadway where acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation. C. The second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersecfion is 9 m (30 ft) or greater. In this case, a STOP sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway. D. An intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign. Standard: A YIELD (Rl-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout intersection. Sect 28.07 to 28.08 November 2003 MUTCD 1003 Califomia Supplement Page 2B-I CHAPTER 2B. REGULATORY SIGNS Section 2B.01 Application oCReeulatorv Signs The following is added to this section: Standard: Orders, ordinances and resolutions by local authorities which affect State highways shall be approved by Department of Transportation. Support: Signs required for enforcement are normally placed by, and at the expense of, the authority establishing the regulation. Section ZB.02 Design of Regulatory Signs The following is added to this section: Support: Sign design details are contained in FHWA's "Standard Highway Signs" book and Department of Transportation's "Traffic Sign Specifications". See Section 1 A.11 for information regarding these publications. Table 2B-101 shows a list of Califomia Regulatory Signs. Figure 26-101 shows Califomia Regulatory Signs. Section 2B.05 STOP Sian Applications rt The following is added to this section: Support: A STOP (RI-1) sign is not a "cure-all" and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Often, the need for a STOP (Rl-1) sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by removing obstructions. Through Highways Option: STOP (R1-I) signs may be installed either at or near the entrance to a State highway, except at signalized intersections, or at any location so as to control traffic within an intersection. Refer to CVC 21352 and 21355. See Section 1 A.1 I for information regarding this publication. F Support: i When STOP (RI-1) signs or traffic control signals have been erected at all entrances, a highway constitutes a through highway. Refer to CVC 600. J Authority to place STOP (R1-1) signs facing State highway traffic is delegated to the Department of !/ Transportation's District Directors. Option: Local authorities may designate any highway under theirjurisdiction as a through highway and install STOP (RI-1) signs in a like manner Refer to CVC 21354. Standard: No local authority shall erect or maintain any STOP (R1-1) sign or other traffic control device ~, requiring a stop, on any State highway, except by permission of the Department of Transportation. Refer to CVC 21353. Support: a The Department of Transportation will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP sign will benefit traffic. S_ _/C~ May 20, 2004 ~,~-~ coo~P- ATTACNME~,~T „G „ t~tk~ah~ California 7060: AUTHORITY TO INSTALL OFFICIAL TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICES: The city traffic engineer shall have the power and duty to determine the location of and to place and maintain or cause to be placed and maintained official traffic-control devices52~~) when and as required to make effective the provisions of this chapter or when he may deem such official traffic-control devices necessary or proper to regulate traffic or to guide or warn traffic. (Ord. 553, §1, adopted 1963) ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ _ 7061: AUTHORITY TO ERECT CERTAIN OFFICIAL TRAFFIC-CONTROL DEVICES ENUMERATED: The authority herein granted to the city traffic engineer to locate, place and maintain official traffic-control devices includes, but is not necessarily confined to, the authority to locate, place and maintain warning signs to caution drivers of the need for added alertness or reduction in speed, regulatory signs, including speed signs, stop signs, yield signs, traffic signals and alternating signals, to inform motorists of regu atiolTns governing movement, guide signs for guidance and directional information and construction signs, which may include warning, regulatory and guide signs. (Ord. X53, §4, adopted 1963) ~l ~' T T pC NNt,FII~T ~ ,• TRAFFIC SIGNALIZATION IMPACT STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared For: CITY OF UKIAH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Prepared By OMNI-MEANS, LTD. ENGINEERS & PLANNERS 2237 Douglas Boulevard, Suite #100 Roseville, California 95661 (916) 782-8688 June 2004 25-7354-01 (R662TS02.DOC) RECEIVED ~' JUN 2 8 2004 CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS As shown in this study, existing intersection operations indicate that all study intersections except the intersection at Main StreeUGobbi Street aze currently operating at acceptable LOS "D" or better conditions. However, all study intersections meet at least one of the four warrants. Traffic signals are recommended at all those study intersections that aze currently meeting at least two of the four warrants analyzed in this study. Based upon the warrant analysis presented in this study, traffic signals are recommended at the following study intersections. • Main Street/Perldns Street (meets 3 of 5 warrants) • Main StreeUGobbi Street (meets 2 of 5 warrants) • Low Gap Road/Bush Street (meets 2 of 5 warrants) -~ • Waugh Lane/Gobbi Street (meets 3 of 5 warrants) N SUITABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO FUND TRAFFIC SIGNALS N At the rate of $175,000 per intersection, the total cost of upgrading the four study intersections to signalized intersections is approximately $700,000. This cost is not expected to overburden the development impact fee program, which is currently under study. This program is being developed under the legislafive authority N granted by AB 1600. The basis for the development fees is "Equivalent Dwelling Units" (EDU) which are a measure of traffic generation with all land uses equated to the equivalence of residential dwelling unit trip production and attraction. For example a single family residence may generate 10 trips daily, while a M commerciaUretailbuikiing may generate 100 trips per 1000 square feet of floor azea; therefore, the commercial equivalence is each 1000 squaze feet of building equals 10 single family residences or 10 EDU. The City of Ukiah is in the process of completing a citywide circulation study that will specifically identify a traffic impact M fee program. These costs will be further evaluated within the cuculafion study. I' Traffic Signalization Impact Study Page 11 City of Ukiah (R662TS01.DOC/15-7354-01J A ~,TX~C~M,ENT .~ E „ C,~"m n~ !_ol(x) ~F„ Fy _ax' ~LeMe)rc ~a ~ ~~ tw(sop ,a a„ ~~ ^6 HMO)) ~~ ~3 L2 1 `z<kvU a3 J 1 ~9l(cc) q3 1 ~. ~L9(K) .°,i J 1 ~w(vW Q ° M ;~ r r ~a~;€;t9<~ -~ r r r r ' may ~ S R+ lG_ 3 a S.. Tod .~ J tel(a) «-nes(wv) 4iS ~~ \ i~j ~ 1 a ~zL(K) °2OoU i-" ° mq s~ g ~ a~' J 1 ~ ~~N^ 4 $d R- °u°w 1 4 ~ OLI(rsq X xv m=(oii)an-~• m Ap ~a ~ ~ I ~^ - ((kk u~ (s)'7 ^ tr V ~°UnkII--1 ~I T^ ~" y nryiS s-1pl(nnl) il° `Ln(%) p SR~ r[~((6Ll)) gC S~ YSi e7 `OLI(BLS) we 14 r-nu> :: ! ~ `ia(LLn m J 1 r-IIUL) t74 J 1 `w(%n e~ ,I~~ -~ r r ° ~e rf ~~ u«u~ ~ r r . ~ (p~ ~I•,,l~ -~ t r nwkplz ? x~ ~ ~ ailk9~ av ~ fafa~ axa a V ~~ .. 4 v--eoL(acz) $ rsr(wl 4 ~^n ~ x~x w J 1 ( r!Gfs f""ot an~ ~ "~ J 1. ( rxc(ewei) ~K(w) \ Na S3 ^A ~~ ' J 1 '~ 7t (n<l(c1s~ ~1 A r s ~~ ~ev~°.°Ly ~g ~r ~ aA~ taellG 1 ~ r y y~ (oehs1 1 r ag ~ m N F n Y Y sc(nc) 9e(wl) m - `stl(xp EA, , h •9^ ~ttt0.sz)- J ~. ~ •-wI(C6C) yC LpS j l ~. ~-tn(tlo J WL(OK) se J .sc(Lw) 'N7 (whs~' (n<n)ZK.r ' - p~(S(L sl~ ~ (Int)C/.ti (ec tc~ '~.r (' ~ $ $ ~°o (Lalku~' ' (eCEHKr L ( ~c ~~(~h -f (OII 9Eti b ~ ., L9~ Xg TO ;~Y l...ac(a) Cgg naT m--S9C(S4v) C~3 J 1 ~LL(e0) y~a<~`d«~ ~ ~ r RA ~ x~r twl(xzl mfn R~ +--w(L9t) p~ J 1 j-'LI(IX) X]7 Iplp01 a 4nup9~ Ra~ ~ rwt(KE) ~ ~-<c(IL) ~~ II9L)Ott-• a9,(K 1q r :~ ^~ mC Yn .d~ J 1 4 a~ (ei7io ~ ~? e ~Y~ia Lrti `~ NYiIf ~LS~9a) C4 J 1 y ~K w) bl` e~<< u~;~ ~~ Y y - ~ vV .. ' w ~ a8a q4 j(Xp `BI(LL) rn F(Zt(ISt) o ~F ySre ~m ~-19(wl) if~n ~S9E(C%) p8~ \ ~ ~-CI(Ll) C} ' ~~'T rlGi(OLn) 4 Y~-' `~ NT tLi(nL) ' _ F ~X+9X LW(SL) ~m N~1 3y J l `ea ell i« J l ~. i-%(LS) y A~ J l ~w(w) q %L(On4) qi 1 ~. ~ ~-.CLC(z%) ~F J l ~LC(tt) s° iux ~ ~ I r =~ (.lL~l-1 4 (LM ttti Sy(a<nI~ ~~ ~ r r == r~ m •~ (%)Ii~ ~ r r m (iin)99C~ „ (I)ov~ ~..~ (w)sc~ (csbc~ z~,^-, a x_ a (%pul egg v n m T a ~° ~° ~ mw ~K. ~ ( ~ ~~~ ~a' ~Y t 5mn s saKC i ~ ~ J ! _g"y J ! is aol) ~-v(a) ~a. J ! I. r%L(oez) ~I(9) ~ d; 1- a(vL).. ~-%L(wa ~ ~$ J 1 L .- V ) I.(no ~ ~ ++ (tkVl_} ~ Po2 ((el~ ~ i$(4R) eZ-I ~ r r Pig r r A$ (e t) 1 } l r = b 1v (Ylkl~ ~i^^3. N u~~ 9 Lll~ ! (LI)LC g+ :l V ..+_ ~ v 3 Y_yS $y 'Y "I$ ~(SLt)<fC ^~^'^ ~ ^ I^ ~ tl(C) rCf(nL) ^ N~ ~Y~ +(~+- ~w(CL) 19(<S) ~ _ + ~ ~ +y^ ~`~ ~^K LO(n) +-L(S) M V ~n)Ll lL f. ~%(L{) V~ 1 rK(4C) u\ J1 ~-LS(K) L 1)lLC-I (sik-~ ~ r a~ (ilk n~ ( e r r ~~ (Zil~i-~' fG[ LL-I ~ e r r ^ ~~ (a>~~ `L e r r 7 AC 7 ( ~. fiw v~ Y~ .,~ (ai7w~ x«R ^ 8 F V m _~ U ~_ L t- C 0 ++ ^U, ,W^ VI L m C L 3 2 N d C N X W CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 2006 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~~ SUBJECT: Request for no parking zone- 615 Talmage Road Agenda Item 5c. REQUEST: Staff received a letter, Attachment "A", from Ernie Wipf requesting consideration of parking restrictions at 615 Talmage Road at the intersection of Hastings Road. Mr. Wipf noted the difficulty drivers have trying to turn from Hastings Road onto Talmage Road. DISCUSSION: Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Topic 405.1 (2) discusses corner sight distance. Excerpts from the Design Manual are included as Attachment "B". Please note Table 405.1A which identifies specific corner sight distances related to various design speeds. The table has been partially converted to conventional units for ease of use. Talmage Road, east of Hastings Road has a posted speed limit of 50 mph. West of Hastings Road, the posted speed limit on Talmage Road is 35 mph. Using a design speed of 37.28 mph, the required corner sight distance west of the intersection of Talmage Road and Hastings Road is 426.5 feet. Likewise, using a design speed of 49.7 mph, the required corner sight distance east of the intersection of Talmage Road and Hastings Road is 558 feet. Please note that the traffic stopping on Hastings Road has somewhat restricted visibility of the cross traffic on Talmage Road due to the curved alignment of Talmage Road west of Hastings Road. When tall vehicles park along the frontage of 615 Talmage Road, the visibility is even further reduced. Please reference Attachment "C" for a photograph of the subject intersection. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC. Staff has provided the following options for consideration: 1. Recommend to City Council the establishment of a no parking zone on Talmage Road of sufficient length to provide corner sight distance of 426.5 feet. 2. Refer to staff for further analysis. enc. cc: file EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT RENTALS Wipf Construction N tTAtN MENT "A" LICENSED CONTRACTOR LICENSE N629598 P.O. BOX 234 LOCATION UKIAH, CALIF. 95482-0234 PHONE 462-8741 1300 HASTINGS ROAD OWNER ERNEST M. WIPF FAX 462-5409 RECEIVED City of Ukiah Traffic Engineering Committee Attn: Rick Senor 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 December 19, 2005 Dear Mr. Senor, DEC 1 9 2005 CITY OF UKIAH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS The parking area in front of 615 Talmage Road has been being utilized by large commercial vehicles as a storage area. Trailers have been being parked and left in this area. This practice reduces our ability to view eastbound Talmage Road traffic when exiting Hastings Road. Cal-Trans requires that an encroachment onto their highways have a 300 foot line-of -sight in both directions, to view oncoming traffic. With these vehicles parked in front of 615 Talmage Road, the line-of-sight is reduced to approximately 100 feet. This practice is making it extremely hazardous to exit from Hastings Road onto Talmage Road. This situation has caused many near accidents by our inability to see the approaching eastbound traffic. If this practice is allowed to continue it is only a matter of time until a serious accident will occur. I would request that the parking regulations be modified on this space, to ensure that we are afforded a reasonable line-of-sight distance for oncoming traffic. I believe this could be accomplished by placing a height limit on this parking spot, as you have done in other areas of the City of Ukiah, were reduced line-of-sight has created safety issues. Thank you for considering this issue. Cordially, Ernie Wipf R TTpC kN1E111, "g „ Cat N"fpg5 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 4pa7 November 1,2001 (2) STAR Truck. The STAA truck-turn templates Adequate time must be provided for the should be used in the design of all new waiting vehicle to either cross all lanes of interchanges and intersections on the National through traffic, cross the near lanes and Network and on routes leading from the turn left, or turn right, without requiring National Network to designated service and through traffic to radically alter their terminal routes On rehabilitation projects they speed. should be used at interchanges and intersections proposed as service or terminal The values given in Table 405.IA provide access routes. In some cases, factors such as 7-1/2 seconds for the driver on the cost, right of way, environmental issues, local crossroad to complete the necessary a enc desires, and the t g Y ype of community maneuver while the approaching vehicle being served may limit the use of the STAA travels at the assumed design speed of the templates. In those cases, other appropriate main highway. The 7-1/2 second criterion templates should be used. is normally applied to all lanes of through traffic in order to cover all possible The minimum practical taming radius is 15 maneuvers by the vehicle at the crossroad. m. However, the 18 m radius develops less However, by providing the standazd corner swept width and may have an advantage. The sight distance to the lane nearest to and 18 m radius should be used in most situations, farthest from the waiting vehicle, adequate but the 15 m radius is acceptable in restricted time should be obtained to make the situations. necessary movement. On multilane (3) California Truck. The California truck-turn highways a 7-1/2 second criterion for the template should be used in the deli n of outside lane, in both directions of travel, highways not on the National Network The normally will provide increased sight minimum practical turning radius is 15 m. distance to the inside lanes. Consideration should be given to increasing these values (4) Bus. At intersections where track volumes are on downgrades steeper than 3% and longer light or where the predominate truck traffic than 2 km (see Index 201.3), where there consists of mostly 3-axle and 4-axle units, the are high truck volumes on the crossroad, or bus taming template may be used. Its wheel where the skew of the intersection paths sweep a greater width than 3-axle substantially increases the distance traveled delivery trucks and the smaller buses such as by the crossing vehicle. school buses, but a slightly lesser width than a 4-axle truck. In determining corner sight distance, a set back distance for the vehicle waiting at the Topic 405 -Intersection Design crossroad must be assumed. Set back for the driver on the crossroad shall be a Standards minimum of 3 m plus the shoulder width of the major road but not less than 4 m. 405.1 Sight Distance Corner sight distance is to be measured (l) Stopping Sight Distance. See Index 201.1 for from a 1070 mm hei ht at the location of minimum stopping sight distance requirements. the driver on the minor road to a 1300 mm object height in the center of the -~ (2) Corner Sight Distance. approaching lane of the major road. If the (a) General--At unsignalized intersections a major road has a median bamer, a 600 substantially cleaz line of sight should be mm object height should be used to maintained between the driver of a ve- determine the median barrier set back. hide waiting at the crossroad and the driver of an approaching vehicle. 400-8 November I, 2001 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL In some cases the cost to obtain 7-1/2 seconds of corner sight distances may be excessive. High costs may be attributable to right of way acquisition, building removal, extensive excavation, or unmitigable environmental impacts. In such cases a lesser value of comer sight distance, as described under the following headings, may be used. (3) Decision Sight Distance. At intersections where the State route turns or crosses another State route. the decision sight distance values given in Table 201.7 should be used In computing and measuring decision sight distance. the 1070 mm eye height and the 150 mm object height should be used. the object being located on [he side of the inter- section nearest the approaching driver (b) Public Road Intersections (Refer to Topic 205}-At unsionalized public road intersec- tions (see Index 405 7) corner sight distance values given in Table 405 IA (4) should be provided. At signalized intersections the values for corner sight distances given in Table 405.1A should also be applied whenever possible. Even though traffic flows are designed to move at sepazate times, unanticipated vehicle conflicts can occur due to violation of signal, right turns on red, malfunction of the signal, or use of flashing red yellow mode. Where restrictive conditions exist, similar to those listed in Index 405.1(2)(a), the minimum value for corner sight distance at both signalized and unsignalized intersections shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. (c) Private Road Intersections (Refer to Index 205.2) and Rnral Driveways (Refer to Index 205.4)--The minimum comer sight distance shall be equal to the stopping sight distance as given in Table 201.1, measured as previously described. (d) Urban Driveways (Refer to Index 205.3)-- Comer sight distance requirements as described above are not applied to urban driveways. The application of the various sight distance requirements for the different types of intersec- tions is summarized in Table 405.1 B. Acceleration Lanes for Turning Moves onto State Highways. At rural intersections, with stop control on the local cross road, acceleration lanes for left and right toms onto the State facility should be considered. At a minimum, the following features should be evaluated for both the major highway and the cross road: • divided versus undivided • number of lanes • design speed • gradient • lane, shoulder and median width • traffic volume and composition • taming volumes • horizontal curve radii • sight distance • proximity of adjacent intersections • types of adjacent intersections For additional information and guidance, refer to the AASHTO publication, "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", the Headquarters Traffic Liaison and the Project Development Coordinator. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Table 405.1A Corner Sight Distance (7-1/2 Second Criteria) Design Speed Comer Sight (km/h Distance m ao : 29• mQ 90 = 295 50 = 31.1 mph 110 =3 ~I ft 60= 3a.2~rr~ph 130 =g2b.S~t ~o = q 3.5r.~h lso . q gZ-Ft• ao = qq.~ m.Ph loo = 55S ff. 90 790 100 210 110 230 _J`~ Table 405.1 B Application of Sight Distance Requirements Intersection Sight Distance Types Stopping Comer Decision Private Roads X Xtt) Public Streets and X X Roads Signalized X h> Intersections State Route Inter- X X X sections & Route Direction Changes, with or without Signals (p Using stopping sight distance between ao eye height of 1070 mm and an object height of 1300 mm. See Index 405.1(2)(a) for setback requirements. (2) Apply wrner sight distance requirements a[ signalized intersections whenever possible due [o unanticipated violations of the signals or malfunctions of the signals. See Index 405.1(2)(6). 405.2 Left-turn Channelization (I) General. The purpose of a left-tam lane is to expedite the movement of through traffic, control the movement of turning traffic, in- crease the capacity of the intersection, and im- prove safety chazacteristics. 400-9 July 1, 2004 The District Traffic Branch normally establishes the need for lefr-corn lanes. See "Guidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections," August 1985, published by the California Division of Transportation Operations. (2) Design Elements. (a) Lane Width -- The lane width for both single and double left-turn lanes on State highways shall be 3.6 m. Under certain circumstances (listed below), lefr- turn lane widths of 3.3 m or as narrow as 3.0 m may be used on RRR or other projects on existing State highways and on roads or streets under other jurisdictions when supported by an approved design exception pursuant to Index 82.2. When considering lane width reductions adjacent to curbed medians, refer to Index 303.5 for guidance on effective roadway width; which may vary depending on drivers' lateral positioning and shy distance from raised curbs. • On high speed coral highways or moderate speed suburban highways where width is restricted, the minimum width of single or dual left-turn lanes may be reduced to 3.3 m. • In severely constrained situations on low to moderate speed urban highways where lazge tracks are not expected, the minimum width of single left-taco lanes may be reduced to 3.0 m. When double left-mm lanes aze warranted under these same cirwmstances the width of each lane shall be no less than 3.3 m. This added width is needed to assure adequate clearance between taming vehicles. (b) Approach Taper -- On a conventional highway without a median, an approach taper provides space for aleft-tam lane by moving traffic laterally to the right. The approach taper is unnecessary where a median is available for the full width of the left-turn lane. Length of the approach ATTAcN;m~NT "C'' Sign In Sheet Traffic Engineering Meeting January 10, 2006 3:00 p.m. 300 Seminary Avenue, Con. 3 Lei tJ of `ZI kiwi 'VAMP-please print ADDRESS , ~~ /1. y ,~ d/1~ /C- i ~' ' ~i9 C c//l i ~ __-- ~ ~ 1-1 ~ ~- I~til. ~T ~'' ~- ~~v~ C~~t~~ ~~~-~r~ rr~~ ~~C~ ~E!}f~fl i~~tlo~r"c ~tiC~ INS ~ .t ~~'l,C-~ l : G c~ ~~~C L`~G~r~„ ~~ ~ an~~ ___ j'J~ ti 50 9 C ~ ~~~ ~ - <, ., ~r_ ~ I~/~ Pei dX ~3~ u~~~ _l